Filed: Nov. 16, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-1261 (D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00008-MSK-1) JAQUON H. MUCSARNEY, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. _ After accepting a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal, Jaquon H. Mucsarney pleaded gui
Summary: FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2018 _ Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. No. 18-1261 (D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00008-MSK-1) JAQUON H. MUCSARNEY, (D. Colo.) Defendant - Appellant. _ ORDER AND JUDGMENT* _ Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges. _ After accepting a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal, Jaquon H. Mucsarney pleaded guil..
More
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT November 16, 2018
_________________________________
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. No. 18-1261
(D.C. No. 1:16-CR-00008-MSK-1)
JAQUON H. MUCSARNEY, (D. Colo.)
Defendant - Appellant.
_________________________________
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
_________________________________
Before BRISCOE, HARTZ, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.
_________________________________
After accepting a plea agreement that included a waiver of his right to appeal,
Jaquon H. Mucsarney pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United
States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 286, and one count of aggravated identity theft in
violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028A. He was sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment on the
conspiracy count, followed by two years’ imprisonment for identity theft for a total
sentence of 144 months.
Despite his waiver, Mucsarney has filed a notice of appeal in which he seeks
to appeal his sentence. The government moves to enforce the waiver. See United
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines
of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for
its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
States v. Hahn,
359 F.3d 1315, 1328 (10th Cir. 2004) (en banc) (per curiam).
Mucsarney’s counsel “concedes that the appeal waiver contained in his Plea
Agreement applies and that no exception set forth in United States v. Hahn . . .
negates enforcement of that waiver.” Resp. at 1. We gave Mucsarney the
opportunity to file a pro se response, but the deadline for doing so has passed and we
have not received a response.
We review the government’s motion under the three-prong analysis adopted in
Hahn, which requires us “to determine: (1) whether the disputed appeal falls within
the scope of the waiver of appellate rights; (2) whether the defendant knowingly and
voluntarily waived his appellate rights; and (3) whether enforcing the waiver would
result in a miscarriage of
justice.” 359 F.3d at 1325.
In the plea agreement, Mucsarney waived the right to appeal his sentence
unless
(1) the sentence imposed is above the maximum penalty provided in the
statute of conviction, (2) the Court, after determining the otherwise
applicable sentencing guideline range, either departs or varies upwardly,
or (3) the Court determines that the total offense level is higher than 27
and imposes a sentence above the sentencing guideline range calculated
for that total offense level.
Mot. to Enforce, Attach. 1 (Plea Agmt.) at 2.
Mucsarney’s appeal is within the scope of the waiver: the sentence equaled but
was not above the maximum penalty; the district court did not depart upward from
the applicable guideline range; and the 144-month sentence did not exceed the 130 to
162-month range for an offense level of 27. Second, the waiver was knowing and
2
voluntary as reflected in both the plea agreement and colloquy at the plea hearing.
Last, there is no indication in the record that enforcing the waiver would result in a
miscarriage of justice as defined in
Hahn, 359 F.3d at 1327.
The motion to enforce is granted and this appeal is dismissed.
Entered for the Court
Per Curiam
3